The Death of the Global Warming Myth

[American Patriot]

Yeah, familiar, check my post again. Mentioned it there.

But look over the space weather news of the last few months. There is actually a LOT of activity. We've had a dozen or more CMEs in the last two years and some pretty heavy solar weather, messed up ionosphere (propagation) for the last two years. There have been hundreds of sunspots too.

To be honest though, I haven't really had a lot of time to keep up with what's going on in the heavens because of the crap here on Earth.

[Phil Fiord]

The lull in solar activity is apparently a double dip thing where we are in a lull before another grand spike. I read an article about it and it has happened before.

Also, as the earth warms, more moisture forms making clouds that block solar rays. This brings cooling. It is a great self regulating system and will have variations in temperature and effect.

[American Patriot]

3/19/2013 @ 8:00AM |5,316 views

The Feverish Hunt For Evidence Of A Man-Made Global Warming Crisis


(Photo credit: openDemocracy)




Although “climate” is generally associated with periods of at least three decades, less than one and one-half decades following mid-1970s “scientific” predictions that the next Ice Age was rapidly approaching, the media trumpeted a new and opposite alarm…a man-made global warming crisis. Previously, even the prestigious National Academy of Sciences had issued a warning that there was “a finite possibility that a serious worldwide cooling could befall the earth within the next 100 years.”


Hot climate frenzy was fueled by a convergence of geopolitical circumstances. Theoretical model calculations at that time, including some at NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamic Laboratory, began to indicate that substantial global warming could result from increasing CO₂ levels. Then, during a particularly hot 1988 summer in many U.S. regions, NASA’s James Hansen testified before Senator Al Gore’s steamy1988 Committee on Science, Technology and Space, that he was 99% certain that temperatures had in fact, increased due to greenhouse warming. Also, the Cold War had just ended, and the Union of Concerned Scientists redirected its attention from nuclear disarmament to a new “global warming threat”. They issued a widely publicized statement in the New York Times condemning human carbon emissions as the villain.

This was also a time when Third World countries, by force of numbers, and European socialist green parties, through powers of aggressiveness, seized control of the United Nations to advance globalization goals, which emerging global warming alarm perfectly served. Accordingly, the United Nations established the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UN-FCCC) to organize conferences, along with the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which, prior to any studies, concluded that climate change caused by fossil burning posed a global threat.


Within about half of a legitimate climate period after the earlier global cooling scares, the UN-FCCC had already determined that “climate change” was, by their definition: “a change of climate, which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity, that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.” Key words here are “attributed” to “human activities” which alter the “atmosphere”…greenhouse gases (CO₂ specifically).


Accordingly, when you hear references to “climate change” in the media these days, you can be pretty certain that it’s going to discuss some observed or inevitable catastrophe attributed to “bad” greenhouse warming caused by burning evil fossil fuels. We almost never see commentary reminding us that CO₂ and warm conditions are both really great for agriculture and most Earth critters.


Yes, Climate Change is Real!



Indeed, climate really does change without any help from us, and we can be very grateful that it does. Over the past 800,000 years, much of the Northern Hemisphere has been covered by ice up to miles thick at regular intervals lasting about 100,000 years each. Much shorter interglacial cycles like our current one lasting 10,000 to 15,000 years have offered reprieves from bitter cold.


And yes, from this perspective, current temperatures are abnormally warm. By about 12,000 to 15,000 years ago Earth had warmed enough to halt the advance of glaciers and cause sea levels to rise, and the average temperature has held fairly constant ever since, with brief intermissions.


Although temperatures have been generally mild over the past 500 years, we should remember that significant fluctuations are still normal. The past century has witnessed two distinct periods of warming. The first occurred between 1900 and 1945, and the second, following a slight cool-down, began quite abruptly in 1975. That second period rose at quite a constant rate until 1998, and then stopped and began falling again after reaching a high of 1.16ºF above the average global mean.
But What About Those “Observed” Human Greenhouse Influences?



The IPCC stated in its last 2007 Summary for Policymaker’s Report that “Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperature since the mid-20^th century [which is very small] is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic [human-caused] greenhouse gas concentrations.” And there can be no doubt here that they are referring to CO₂, not water vapor, which constitutes the most important greenhouse gas of all. That’s because the climate models don’t know how to “observe” it, plus there aren’t any good historic records to enable trends to be revealed.


Besides, unlike carbon, there is little incentive to attach much attention to anthropogenic water vapor. After all, no one has yet figured out a way to regulate or tax it.
A key problem in determining changes and influences of water vapor concentrations in the Earth’s atmosphere is that they are extremely variable. Differences range by orders of magnitude in various places. Instead, alarmists sweep the problem to one side by simply calling it a CO₂ “feedback” amplification effect, always assuming that the dominant feedback is “positive” (warming) rather than “negative” (cooling). In reality, due to clouds and other factors, those feedbacks could go both ways, and no one knows for sure which direction dominates climate over the long run.


Treating water vapor as a known feedback revolves around an assumption that relative humidity is a constant, which it isn’t. Since it is known to vary nearly as widely as actual water vapor concentrations, no observational evidence exists to support a CO₂ warming amplification conclusion.


But let’s imagine that CO₂ is the big greenhouse culprit rather than a bit-player, and that its influences are predominately warming. Even if CO₂ levels were to double, it would make little difference. While the first CO₂ molecules matter a lot, successive ones have less and less effect. That’s because the carbon that exists in the atmosphere now has already “soaked up” its favorite wavelengths of light, and is close to a saturation point. Those carbon molecules that follow manage to grab a bit more light from wavelengths close to favorite bands, but can’t do much more…there simply aren’t many left-over photons at the right wavelengths. For those of you who are mathematically inclined, that diminishing absorption rate follows a logarithmic curve.


Who Hid the Carbon Prosecuting Evidence?



Since water vapor and clouds are so complex and difficult to model, their influences are neglected in IPCC reports. What about other evidence to support an IPCC claim that “most” mid-century warming can “very likely” be attributed to human greenhouse emissions?Well, if it’s there, it must me very well hidden, since direct measurements seem not to know where it is.


For example, virtually all climate models have predicted that if greenhouse gases caused warming, there is supposed to be a telltale “hot spot” in the atmosphere about 10 km above the tropics. Weather balloons (radiosondes) and satellites have scanned these regions for years, and there is no such pattern. It wasn’t even there during the recent warming spell between 1979 (when satellites were first available) and 1999.


How have the committed greenhouse zealots explained this? They claim that it’s there, but simply hidden by “fog in the data”…lost in the statistical “noise”. Yet although radiosondes and satellites each have special limitations, their measurements show very good agreement that the “human signature” doesn’t exist. Suggestions to the contrary are based upon climate model data outputs which yield a wide range of divergence and uncertainty…an example of garbage in, gospel out.


Why Did the Last Ice Age End and the Good Times Begin?



A recent study conducted by researchers at Grenoble University in France and published in Science magazine suggests that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels produced from natural factors contributed to the sharp warming that ended the last Ice Age about 15,000 years ago. Scientists have long recognized that Ice Ages and brief interglacial interludes (like our current one) are caused by variations in the Earth’s orbit around the sun. It is also well known that when oceans warm (in this instance due to intensification of sunlight energy), huge amounts of absorbed CO₂ are released, exactly like the off-gassing of a carbonated drink when warmed. The bottom line is that past atmospheric CO₂ is wholly controlled by the Earth’s temperature and climate, not the other way around.

The Grenoble study authors did not factor in influences the warming oceans would have had upon evaporated of water vapor, that primary atmospheric greenhouse gas. Rather, it focused upon analyzing air bubbles trapped in Antarctic ice cores to determine the trace CO₂ concentrations at different times over thousands of years, concluding that the last Ice Age ended within 200 years or less after CO₂ levels rose…and possibly that there was no time lag at all. This finding challenges previous research indicating that CO₂ levels rose some 600-800 years or so after temperatures increased.


There is another possibility warranting consideration as well, one involving slight differences in Arctic and Antarctic deglaciation time cycles. Since atmospheric CO₂ is a global condition, and the solar “Milankovich” mechanism of deglaciation begins with warming in the high North, it is plausible to imagine that Arctic warming would have preceded and subsequently influenced Antarctic deglaciation through the release of both water vapor and CO₂. This, in turn, might help to explain different temperature lag conclusions.


Still, if true, might this “lock-step” relationship between CO₂ and temperature increases be interpreted to suggest that a CO₂ greenhouse effect may have accelerated (amplified) the warming? That’s not smoking gun evidence, but it is certainly possible, and even quite probable. So if this truly is the case, then by how much? Determining that is the big rub, because the findings can be interpreted in different ways.


Consider, for example, that atmospheric CO₂ concentrations at the end of the last Ice Age, when rapid deglaciation occurred were less than half of today’s levels. At the same time, the influence of that lower concentration would also have been much greater than today due to the logarithmic absorption pattern. Therefore, the CO₂ amplification factor might have contributed proportionately much more influence than today, causing it to be less relevant to current circumstances.


Accurate dating of samples is very difficult and subject to large unknowns. And while carbon dioxide levels have been constantly increasing, most of all estimated warming since 1900 occurred before the mid-1940s. Despite those continuously rising CO₂ levels, global mean temperatures have been flat over at least the past decade.


Regarding That Confidence That We Are Changing the Climate.



While even IPCC admits that correlation between different occurrences, however convincing, doesn’t prove cause and effect, this uncertainty principle is often given little priority in summary conclusions they convey to the public. In their first 1990 report, IPCC played on this confusion, claiming: “The size of this warming is broadly consistent with the predictions of climate models, but is also of the same magnitude as natural climate variability.” They could have just as easily said that the greenhouse theory didn’t explain climate, but natural variability did.


Later, the IPCC artfully changed the term “correlation” to “attribution”, meaning that even if observations couldn’t be objective correlated, they could be subjectively attributed if those who wrote the “consensus” conclusions wished to do so. That consensus is what anonymous, politically-determined representatives who approve the entire reports decide fits their preferred narrative.


The final draft of IPCC’s second report for example, contained a passage which was removed which said: “None of these studies cited has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed changes [in global temperature] to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.” Yet, the final, printed 1996 report claimed: “…there is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcings by greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols…from geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change…These results point towards human influence on climate.” The IPCC Summary concludes that “the balance of evidence” suggests a discernible human influence on climate.


Remarkably, another1996 publication “The Holocene”, written by some of the same Summary authors said: “Estimates of…natural variability are critical to the problem of detecting an anthropogenic [human] signal…We have estimated the spectrum…from paleo-temperature proxies and compared it with…general [climate] circulation models…none of the three estimates of the natural variability spectrum agree with each other…Until…resolved, it will be hard to say, with confidence, that an anthropogenic climate signal has or has not been detected.”



The True Nature of Climate Change…It Ain’t a New Thing.



Keep in mind that cyclical, abrupt and dramatic global and regional temperature fluctuations have occurred since long before humans invented agriculture, industries, internal combustion engines and carbon-trading schemes. Yet atmospheric CO₂ levels have remained relatively low over the past 650,000 years, even during the six previous interglacial periods when global temperatures were as much as 9ºF warmer than temperatures we currently enjoy.


Many natural factors are known to contribute to these changes, although even the most sophisticated climate models and theories they are based on cannot predict the timing, scale (either up or down), or future impacts- much less the marginal influences we humans might contribute. So let’s be very thankful for the good times that global warming affords as long as we are fortunate to have it. The real climate crisis will arrive when our planet’s warm Ice Age vacation ends.

[American Patriot]

3/15/2013 @ 8:00AM |2,071 views

Who Released The Climategate Emails And Why

Comment Now Follow Comments




Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich (Photo credit: mira66)




No, it wasn’t a conspiracy plotted by Big Oil or Republican operatives using mercenary hackers after all. And unless you happen to get all your news from the mainstream media, you will undoubtedly recognize that by “Climategate”, I’m referring here to the thousands of leaked email communications between prominent international researchers within the U.K.’s University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) network. That person (yes, single individual) has come forth to shed light on a real conspiracy…one to spread false alarm about a concocted global warming crisis.


Not only that, “Mr. FOIA” (aka. Freedom of Information Act) has done it again. He has issued a password along with instructions to a select group that provides access to a new and much larger communications file, one which many of those researchers and their sponsoring organizations have worked very hard to suppress from legal FOIA requests. I have confirmed through reliable sources that this database is authentic. Some intriguing insights have already begun to surface.

The following quotations present what Mr. FOIA said in an explanation note:

It’s time to tie up loose ends and dispel some of the speculation surrounding the Climategate affair.



Indeed, it’s singular “I” this time. After certain career developments I can no longer use the papal plural.



If this email seems slightly disjointed it’s probably my linguistic background and the problem of trying to address both the wider audience (I expect this will be partially reproduced sooner or later) and the email recipients (whom I haven’t decided yet on).



The “all.7z” password is [redacted]



DO NOT PUBLISH THE PASSWORD. Quote other parts if you like.



Releasing the encrypted archive was a mere practicality. I didn’t want to keep the emails lying around.
I prepared CG1 & 2 [previous email releases] alone. Even skimming through all 220.000 emails would have taken several more months of work in an increasingly unfavorable environment.



Dumping them all into the public domain would be the last resort. Majority of the emails are irrelevant, some of them probably sensitive and socially damaging.
To get the remaining scientifically (or otherwise) relevant emails out, I ask you to pass this on to any motivated and responsible individuals who could volunteer some time to sift through the material for eventual release.



Filtering\redacting personally sensitive emails doesn’t require special expertise.



I’m not entirely comfortable sending the password around unsolicited, but haven’t got better ideas at the moment. If you feel this makes you seemingly “complicit” in a way you don’t like, don’t take action.



I don’t expect these remaining emails to hold big surprises. Yet it’s possible that the most important pieces are among them. Nobody on the planet has held the archive in plaintext since CG2.



That’s right; no conspiracy, no paid hackers, no Big Oil. The Republicans didn’t plot this. USA politics is alien to me, neither am I from the UK. There is life outside the Anglo-American sphere.



If someone is still wondering why anyone would take these risks, or sees only a breach of privacy here, a few words…



The first glimpses I got behind the scenes did little to garner my trust in the state of climate science — on the contrary. I found myself in front of a choice that just might have a global impact.


Briefly put, when I had to balance the interests of my own safety, privacy\career of a few scientists, and the well-being of billions of people living in the coming several decades, the first two weren’t the decisive concern.



It was me or nobody, now or never. Combination of several rather improbable prerequisites just wouldn’t occur again for anyone else in the foreseeable future. The circus was about to arrive in Copenhagen. Later on it could be too late.



Most would agree that climate science has already directed where humanity puts its capability, innovation, mental and material “might”. The scale will grow ever grander in the coming decades if things go according to script. We’re dealing with $trillions and potentially drastic influence on practically everyone.

Wealth of the surrounding society tends to draw the major brushstrokes of a newborn’s future life. It makes a huge difference whether humanity uses its assets to achieve progress, or whether it strives to stop and reverse it, essentially sacrificing the less fortunate to the climate gods.



We can’t pour trillions in this massive hole-digging-and-filling-up endeavor and pretend it’s not away from something and someone else.



If the economy of a region, a country, a city, etc. deteriorates, what happens among the poorest? Does that usually improve their prospects? No, they will take the hardest hit. No amount of magical climate thinking can turn this one upside-down.



It’s easy for many of us in the western world to accept a tiny green inconvenience and then wallow in that righteous feeling, surrounded by our “clean” technology and energy that is only slightly more expensive if adequately subsidized.



Those millions and billions already struggling with malnutrition, sickness, violence, illiteracy, etc. don’t have that luxury. The price of “climate protection” with its cumulative and collateral effects is bound to destroy and debilitate in great numbers, for decades and generations.
Conversely, a “game-changer” could have a beneficial effect encompassing a similar scope.



If I had a chance to accomplish even a fraction of that, I’d have to try. I couldn’t morally afford inaction. Even if I risked everything, would never get personal compensation, and could probably never talk about it with anyone.



I took what I deemed the most defensible course of action, and would do it again (although with slight alterations — trying to publish something truthful on RealClimate was clearly too grandiose of a plan ;-). [Note:RealClimate.org is an alarmist blog site co-founded by Michael Mann, a key Climategate figure and author of a flawed “hockey stick” graph which suggested that human CO2 emissions are leading to a global warming catastrophe.]



Even if I have it all wrong and these scientists had some good reason to mislead us (instead of making a strong case with real data) I think disseminating the truth is still the safest bet by far.



Big thanks to Steve and Anthony and many others. My contribution would never have happened without your work (whether or not you agree with the views stated).
Oh, one more thing. I was surprised to learn from a “progressive” blog, corroborated by a renowned “scientist”, that the releases were part of a coordinated campaign receiving vast amounts of secret funding from shady energy industry groups.



I wasn’t aware of the arrangement but warmly welcome their decision to support my project. For that end I opened a bitcoin address: 1HHQ36qbsgGZWLPmiUjYHxQUPJ6EQXVJFS.



More seriously speaking, I accept, with gratitude, modest donations to support The (other) Cause. The address can also serve as a digital signature to ward off those identity thefts which are part of climate scientists’ repertoire of tricks these days.



Keep on the good work. I won’t be able to use this email address for long so if you reply, I can’t guarantee reading or answering. I will [send] several batches, to anyone I can think of.
Over and out.
Mr. FOIA

[American Patriot]

I saw this... and just laughed and laughed.... I love the ending line.

LOL



came from here: http://www.the-minuteman.org/

[Ryan Ruck]

Here's the piece I had posted about reading back on page 21...

The Calm Before The Solar Storm? NASA Warns 'Something Unexpected Is Happening To The Sun'

March 8, 2013

'Something unexpected' is happening on the Sun, Nasa has warned.

This year was supposed to be the year of 'solar maximum,' the peak of the 11-year sunspot cycle.

But as this image reveals, solar activity is relatively low.

'Sunspot numbers are well below their values from 2011, and strong solar flares have been infrequent,' the space agency says.

The image above shows the Earth-facing surface of the Sun on February 28, 2013, as observed by the Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager (HMI) on NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory.

It observed just a few small sunspots on an otherwise clean face, which is usually riddled with many spots during peak solar activity.

Experts have been baffled by the apparent lack of activity - with many wondering if NASA simply got it wrong.

However, Solar physicist Dean Pesnell of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center believes he has a different explanation.

'This is solar maximum,' he says.

'But it looks different from what we expected because it is double-peaked.'

'The last two solar maxima, around 1989 and 2001, had not one but two peaks.'

Solar activity went up, dipped, then rose again, performing a mini-cycle that lasted about two years, he said.

The same thing could be happening now, as sunspot counts jumped in 2011 and dipped in 2012, he believes.

Pesnell expects them to rebound in 2013: 'I am comfortable in saying that another peak will happen in 2013 and possibly last into 2014.'

He spotted a similarity between Solar Cycle 24 and Solar Cycle 14, which had a double-peak during the first decade of the 20th century.

If the two cycles are twins, 'it would mean one peak in late 2013 and another in 2015'.

[American Patriot]

this another April Fool's Joke?

LOL

1 April 2013 Last updated at 06:12 ET

Melt may explain Antarctica's sea ice expansion

Antarctic sea ice shows a small but significant expansion, in contrast to the trend seen in the Arctic


Climate change is expanding Antarctica's sea ice, according to a scientific study in the journal Nature Geoscience.


The paradoxical phenomenon is thought to be caused by relatively cold plumes of fresh water derived from melting beneath the Antarctic ice shelves.


This melt water has a relatively low density, so it accumulates in the top layer of the ocean.


The cool surface waters then re-freeze more easily during Autumn and Winter.


This explains the observed peak in sea ice during these seasons, a team from the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI) in De Bilt says in its peer-reviewed paper.


Climate scientists have been intrigued by observations that Antarctic sea ice shows a small but statistically significant expansion of about 1.9% per decade since 1985, while sea ice in the Arctic has been shrinking over past decades.


The researchers from the KNMI suggest the "negative feedback" effect outlined in their study is expected to continue into the future.


They tried to reproduce the observed changes in a computer-based climate model.


The sea ice expanded during Southern Hemisphere autumn and winter in response to the development of this fresh, cool surface layer, which floated on the denser, warmer salty sea water below.
This fresh water is ultimately derived from enhanced melting at the base of the Antarctic ice shelves.


"Sea ice around Antarctica is increasing despite the warming global climate," said the study's lead author Richard Bintanja, from the KNMI.


"This is caused by melting of the ice sheets from below," he told the Reuters news agency.


But there are other plausible explanations for Antarctic sea-ice expansion.


Paul Holland of the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) stuck to his findings last year that a shift in winds linked to climate change was blowing ice away from the coast, allowing exposed water in some areas to freeze and make yet more ice.


"The possibility remains that the real increase is the sum of wind-driven and melt water-driven effects, of course. That would be my best guess, with the melt water effect being the smaller of the two," he told the London Science Media Centre.


The study in Nature Geoscience also asserts that the cool melt water layer may limit the amount of water sucked from the oceans that falls as snow on Antarctica. Cold air can hold less moisture than warm air.

[Malsua]

Epicycles

If you don't know the term as it applies to Aristolte and later medievals who still believed in the geocentric model of the solar system, here's the synopsis.

To explain retrograde motion of celestial bodies in a geocentric model, they used epicycles. Basically, it goes round and round then reverses while still going around.

That works, most of the time but not all of the time. The only way to really make it almost perfect is to add an epicycle on top of the epicycle. Then, their model of the solar system was almost perfect, it could reasonably explain the orbits of the sun and planets around Earth. Well, mostly. Later on, others added more epicycles to the epicycles to the Epicycles, trying to get it perfect.

Of course Copernicus comes along and turns the whole thing on it's head by stating the sun is in the center and then has a perfect model, without any epicycles.

Now we have Antarctic sea ice expansion.

So lets add under shelf melting, making cooler water that is easier to freeze. See, the shelfs are warmer so they make cooler water, clear as mud. It's an epicycle.

They'll keep adding "epicycles" until someone comes along and proves that it's just getting fucking colder.

[American Patriot]

The truth is that (by the way, you're RIGHT Mal) they have no CLUE what is going on.

Scientists are specialized in their various fields of study. I'm one that isn't. I see the trends in astrophysics, stellar physics, Earth Sciences, and meteorology all at once because I have studied them and not as individual sciences but taking into account the connections each have to another.

For some reason these so-called "Earth Scientists" don't pay any attention to the Sun.

[Ryan Ruck]

US Headed For The Coldest Spring On Record

May 2, 2013

At the two-thirds mark for meteorological spring, 2013 was the second coldest spring on record – slightly warmer than 1975.



Data is from here: Index of /pub/data/ghcn/daily/hcn/

But 1975 had an unusually warm May at 17C. The two warmest months of May were in 1934 and 1896.



Both graphs above show the average of all daily temperatures at all US HCN stations, calculated per year.

The forecast for the first two weeks of May is well below normal, so odds are that the spring of 2013 will be the coldest on record in the US. This is what Fort Collins looked like at 7pm today (May 1.)

Crack government scientists with supercomputers, predicted in January that this spring was going to be super hot!

[American Patriot]

We haven't really "had spring" here.

It's still bloody winter.

It snowed last week. This week it's finally in the 50s again (we had two or three days a while back that hit 80ish).

We had our first snow this season in October. The last one was at the end of April. That's SIX BLOODY MONTHS OF COLD AND SNOW.

I gotta go someplace warm!

[Ryan Ruck]

We just had a Frost Advisory last night and it is basically the middle of May!

Of course, I'm definitely not complaining. The less time my A/C spends running, the lower my electric bill is and the happier I am.

[Malsua]

36 degrees this morning. Again tomorrow. This is March weather. It blows monkey ass.

[American Patriot]

Supposed to be 80 here today.

Must be global warming or something

[American Patriot]

Hahahahahahohohohho hehehehehe

Daily Caller News Foundation


Global warming? Not so fast

10:36 AM 05/20/2013








Michael Bastasch

• Tweet
• 

New research suggests that the standstill in global temperature increases since 1998 means that global warming will be less severe than originally predicted in the coming decades as temperature estimates are adjusted downwards.


“The most extreme projections are looking less likely than before,” Dr. Alexander Otto of the University of Oxford told BBC News.


Researchers found the globe will warm about 20 percent more slowly in the coming decades than previously estimated. In 2007, the United Nations climate authority predicted that temperatures would rise between 1 degree Celsius and 3 degrees Celsius in the short term. However, this new report estimates that the globe will only warm between 0.9 degrees Celsius and 2.0 degrees Celsius.


This study echoes the findings of a Norwegian study from earlier this year that found that global warming was less severe than the U.N. predicted. Indeed, many other researchers have also been lowering their estimates.


Cato Institute climate scholar Patrick Michaels gave a partial list of studies that have been lower than the UN estimates:

Richard Lindzen gives a range of 0.6 to 1.0 C (Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, 2011); Andreas Schmittner, 1.4 to 2.8 C (Science, 2011); James Annan, using two techniques, 1.2 to 3.6 C and 1.3 to 4.2 C (Climatic Change, 2011); J.H. van Hateren, 1.5 to 2.5 C (Climate Dynamics, 2012); Michael Ring, 1.5 to 2.0 C (Atmospheric and Climate Sciences, 2012); and Julia Hargreaves, including cooling from dust, 0.2 to 4.0 C and 0.8 to 3.6 C (Geophysical Research Letters, 2012).

However, the researchers behind the new report caution that while the short-term global warming estimates are lower than expected, this does not mean that long-term temperature increases will be that much different than previously projected.


According to the researchers, the lower short-term estimate have resulted from oceans absorbing much of the world’s heat over the last decade. This means that global temperature increases will be more consistent in the long term.


The research also noted that the pause in global temperature rises since 1998 would need to last much longer to mean global warming had stopped.


“Given the noise in the climate and temperature system, you would need to see a much longer period of any pause in order to draw the conclusion that global warming was not occurring,” Otto told The Guardian, adding that maybe a 40-year period was needed to make such a determination.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/20/gl...#ixzz2TqTyk0AG

[American Patriot]

Two headlines today, one right after the other

Alaska Continues Its Record Long, Snowy Winter

May 20, 2013




(http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-...g-snowy-winter)

Climate research nearly unanimous on human causes, survey finds

• guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 15 May 2013 19.01 EDT

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-humans-causes)

[American Patriot]

Ah HA!

Climate Change does exist, and it CREATED HUMANS, not HUMANS CREATED CLIMATE CHANGE....

LOL

Climate change boosted human development: study
(AFP) – 48 minutes ago



PARIS — Early humans living in South Africa made cultural and industrial leaps in periods of wetter weather, said a study Tuesday that compared the archaeological record of Man's evolution with that of climate change.


Anatomically modern humans, Homo sapiens, first made their appearance in Africa during the Middle Stone Age which lasted from about 280,000 to 30,000 years ago.


Some of the earliest examples of human culture and technology are found in South Africa -- with fossil evidence of innovative spurts whose cause has left scientists puzzled.


The record reveals that a notable period of human advancement occurred about 71,500 years ago, and another between 64,000 and 59,000 years ago.


Examples of such innovation include the use of symbols, linked to the development of complex language, in engravings, the manufacture and use of stone tools and personal adornment with shell jewellery.


"We show for the first time that the timing of... these periods of innovation coincided with abrupt climate change," study co-author Martin Ziegler of the Cardiff University School of Earth and Ocean Sciences told AFP of the study in the journal Nature Communications.


"We found that South Africa experienced wetter conditions during these periods of cultural advance.


"At the same time, large parts of sub-Saharan Africa experienced drier conditions, so that South Africa potentially acted as a refugium for early humans."


Ziegler and a team reconstructed the South African climate over the past 100,000 years using a sediment core drilled out from the country's east coast.


The core shows changes in river discharge and rainfall.


"It offers for the first time the possibility to compare the archaeological record with a record of climate change over the same period and thus helps us to understand the origins of modern humans," Ziegler said by email.


Co-author Chris Stringer of London's Natural History Museum said the findings supported the view that population growth fuelled cultural advancement through increased human interactions.


"Such climate-driven pulses in southern Africa and more widely were probably fundamental to the origin of key elements of modern human behaviour in Africa and to the subsequent dispersal of Homo sapiens from its ancestral homeland," concluded the study.

[American Patriot]

/Rolls_Eyes

After Oklahoma City Tragedy, Shameless Politicians Unsheath Global Warming Card

U.S. Soldiers and Airmen with the Oklahoma Army National Guard and the Oklahoma Air National Guard along with firefighters participate in recovery efforts after a tornado moved through on May 20, 2013 in Moore, Oklahoma. (Image credit: Getty Images via @daylife)




Not 24 hours passed from the time a devastating tornado ripped through Moore, Oklahoma, killing at least 24 people including eight children, until shameless global warming activists in Congress began exploiting the grief and pain of a devastated community to tell an idiotic tale of global warming causing tornadoes. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), shame on you for being such hard-hearted and factually ignorant vultures preying on other people’s misery.


Before we even get to the objective facts regarding global warming and tornadoes, can we at least respect the human tragedy in Oklahoma and give victims a few days to grieve before we try to politicize their pain? Literally minutes after the F5 tornado devastated Moore, Whitehouse rushed out to the cameras to blame “polluters,” “deniers” and Republicans for the Oklahoma tornado. For goodness sake, Sheldon, even if you happened to be correct about global warming and tornadoes (more on that in a minute), can you stop playing political games for just one hour and allow a hurting town, state and nation to grieve without having to listen to your callous political divisiveness?

Where is your sense of decency?

Is Global Warming Causing A Record Breaking Lack Of Tornado Activity? James Taylor Contributor
Sorry Global Warmists, But Extreme Weather Events Are Becoming Less Extreme James Taylor Contributor
The Overwhelming Judgment of Science Rejects Obama's Global Warming Claims James Taylor Contributor
Yes, Let's Please Have More Conversations About Global Warming James Taylor Contributor

Barbara Boxer, to her benefit, waited almost a day before shamelessly politicizing this human tragedy. Her lack of human decency would be unparalleled in the Senate if not for the even more remarkable lack of human decency displayed by Whitehouse.


Now let’s get to those pesky little things called “facts.” I know these things are foreign to plastic, out-of-touch career politicians like Whitehouse and Boxer, but believe it or not they are relevant to the global warming debate in some circles.


When the Oklahoma tornado touched down Monday afternoon, it occurred at the culmination of the 12-month period with the fewest tornado strikes in recorded history. Did you catch that? We are currently experiencing the fewest tornado strikes in recorded history!



I guess it was inevitable that at some point a tornado would strike again. After all, to the best of my knowledge tornadoes have occurred since long before Oklahomans began driving SUVs and living with the benefits of electricity. According to the alarmists’ logic, because a tornado occurred and because the earth has gradually warmed in the century-plus since the end of the Little Ice Age, global warming must cause tornadoes – even when we are experiencing the fewest number of tornadoes in recorded history precisely when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are at their highest in centuries.


Nor has a gradually warming earth led to an increase in the severity of tornadoes. According to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data, the past 50 years have seen a steady decline in major tornadoes – the F3-F5 tornadoes that do the most damage.


If we want to play the climate association game and claim that global warming plays a role in all extreme weather events, that role is clearly to lessen the frequency and severity of tornadoes and virtually all other extreme weather events. F3-F5 tornadoes occurred approximately 50 percent more often from 1964 through 1984 than they did from 1984 through the present.


While shameless, opportunist, dishonest career politicians claim global warming caused the Oklahoma tornado, the undeniable fact is – if we choose to connect global warming to extreme weather trends – global warming has PREVENTED approximately 20 F3-F5 tornadoes each and every year during the past three decades. That’s 600 F3-F5 tornadoes that would have additionally occurred during the past three decades if not for the beneficial impact of global warming. Thank goodness that global warming is occurring to save so many lives.


These are facts that need to be told. But today should not be the day to tell them. That day should have been sometime next week, or next month, or later in 2013. But hard-hearted politicians can’t resist politicizing every last tragedy that strikes this country, even when they are wrong on the facts.


Can you imagine how it must feel to be one of the people personally affected by this tragedy who knows these global warming facts, is struck with overwhelming grief at the loss of a loved one, and then has to endure politicians like Whitehouse and Boxer predating on his or her unimaginable grief? I suspect quite a few people in families personally affected by the Oklahoma tornado know the facts and now have to endure the additional pain and frustration of listening to Whitehouse and Boxer callously telling lies about their personal tragedy in order to make political hay off their personal loss. Shame on you hard-hearted and ignorant politicians.


Global warming clearly has either no effect on tornadoes or is making tornadoes less frequent and less severe, but this is not a fact that people like me should feel obligated to discuss on a day and a week like this. Whitehouse and Boxer need to grow some common decency.

[American Patriot]

Boxer is a carpetbagging bitch

Daily Caller News Foundation

Boxer uses Okla. tornado to push carbon tax

12:14 PM 05/21/2013















Michael Bastasch

• See All Articles

• Tweet
• 

California Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer blamed the tornado that devastated Oklahoma on global warming during a Senate floor speech Tuesday, using the opportunity to push her own plan to tax carbon dioxide emissions.


“This is climate change,” Boxer said. “This is climate change. We were warned about extreme weather: Not just hot weather, but extreme weather. When I had my hearings, when I had the gavel years ago — it’s been a while — the scientists all agreed that what we’d start to see was extreme weather.”


“Carbon could cost us the planet,” Boxer added, plugging her own carbon tax bill, co-sponsored by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. “The least we could do is put a little charge on it so people move to clean energy.”


The massive tornado that hit Oklahoma had winds up to 200 miles per hour and killed at least 51 people as it tore through neighborhoods. USA Today reports that more than 120 people were receiving treatment at hospitals, including about 50 children.


Boxer is not the only Democrat to blame the tornado on global warming, as Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse spent 15 minutes on the Senate floor ranting against Republicans for denying man-made global warming.


Boxer and Sanders introduced a carbon tax shortly after President Barack Obama threatened to use his executive authority to address global warming if Congress failed to act. Their bill would put a gradually rising fee on carbon dioxide emissions to fund green-energy projects such as wind, solar, geothermal and biomass.


Another group of House and Senate Democrats have also introduced draft legislation that would also slap carbon emissions with a gradually rising fee to reduce the use of carbon-heavy energy sources, like coal.


“You’re going to have tornadoes and all the rest. We need to protect our people,” Boxer said on the Senate floor. “That’s our No. 1 obligation and we have to deal with this threat that is upon us and that is gonna get worse and worse through the years.”


A study by the Institute for Energy Research (IER) argued that a revenue-neutral carbon tax could be a “cure worse than the disease.”


“The dismal record of the U.S. government in implementing efficient climate change policies is hardly evidence in favor of a massive new carbon tax (or cap-and-trade program),” said the study’s author, IER senior economist Robert Murphy in an accompanying statement. “[S]uch a new program will be abused in the political process, and will not be tailored to the recommendations of climate scientists and environmental economists.”
Follow Michael on Twitter
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/21/bo...#ixzz2U1rulzsM

[American Patriot]

Boxer and Sanders introduced a carbon tax shortly after President Barack Obama threatened to use his executive authority to address global warming if Congress failed to act. Their bill would put a gradually rising fee on carbon dioxide emissions to fund green-energy projects such as wind, solar, geothermal and biomass.

Let me point something out.

The LARGEST "biomass" on the planet isn't plants, it isn't humans and mamals. It isn't fish. it's not even simple algae.

It's INSECTS.

Let me point something else out:

The SUN warms the planet. Period. Without the sun, we would all be dead. All of us, trees plants, birds, rats, bugs, people. All of it.

Another point:


Carbon dioxide... is used by plants. Plants use CO2 to produce O2. Without O2 humans and animals would die. Without CO2 plants would die.

A further point:

The world has a FINITE amount of Oxygen, Nitrogen, and other minerals, elements and compounds on the world, in the world and surrounding the world. Various combinations of certain elements are created and destroyed on a routine basis. That includes O2, CO, CO2 and sulfurous compounds. These chemical reactions occur in the clouds (during thunderstorms, for instance O3 - Ozone is created during lightning strikes). Chemical reactions occur in internal combustion engines, which includes creation of H2O, creations of CO and CO2. Water is broken down in various ways.... Hydrogen and Oxygen combine with other elements including sulfur.

Now... regardless of what man made chemical reactions occur, almost every compound structure in chemistry WILL break down given various circumstances. CO for instance is seeking an extra atom of Oxygen (Oxygen being "stable" as O2) - and that's what makes CO bad for people because it will combine in a person's body with other oxygen poisoning the person. however, outside of the human body (or other mamals) CO breaks back down into CO2 or C and O2. Other hydrocarbons break down in various ways.

Basically, and simply put, no matter what kind of chemical reactions humans can put together, there is NOT ENOUGH CHEMICAL REACTIONS to poison the whole planet. Period. (Exception, nuclear material spread thinly across the planet, as it takes micrograms of plutonium to kill one person).

How ARROGANT is it of these people to assume that in two hundred years (roughly the amount of time passed in the "industrial age") human beings have made such a dent in the environment of a planet that the very nature of the planet can wipe out entire cities in a moment with storms, volcanoes and earthquakes in seconds?

How arrogant are these so called "enviromentalists" to assume that cars or coal fired power plants can destroy the whole planet in a short time when the planet has existed for 4.5 billion years (or perhaps more) and the planet has been bombarded from space constantly since the beginning of time by asteroids, comets, meteors and who knows what else from outer space for 4.5 billion years to think that a few cars, trucks and buses caused the melting of glaciers?

To continue with this line of thinking - The sun heats the planet, the sun goes through 22 years cycles of more or less radiation. That space radiation, heat, light and solar winds AFFECT the atmosphere of this planet. The Earth is tilted in such a manner as to cause "seasons". Every Spring in the US, we have storms. The saying "In like a lion out like a lamb" describes March winds that blow across the northern hemisphere creating storm seasons. There are hurricane/cyclone/troplical storm seasons which as well known my humans in both northern and southern hemispheres.

When the sun is more active, the atmosphere is more active. When the atmosphere is more active, storms happen. When storms happen, tornadoes, lightning and rain happen. When lightning happens, ozone is created.

When ozone is created it tends to congregate high in the atmosphere, the stratosphere (because it created there actually in lightning strikes).

Ozone (and I bring up Ozone because there was a huge controversy about the 'ozone layer going away' in the 1980s) is a very reactive chemical which breaks down quickly. Which brings me to another point. In the 1980s the Space Shuttle discovered "an ozone hole" above the north pole predicably causing the environmentalists to postulate that it was "going away" and there would "be no more protection for people" from the sun. Now, understand this clearly.

Ozone EXISTS where it is CREATED. It doesn't move far or travel far before reacting with something else or breaking down. Ozone (O3) is highly reactive. When it breaks down it breaks down by combination and recombination with other elements (usually O itself). There are few if any electrical storms above the North Pole. There will be little ozone because of this.

So the argument of the 80's has given away to the argument of the 90s and 2000s - that is "carbon" is the "cause" of horrible future events that probably won't occur either.

But, let's back up just a bit further. 1960-1977. I remember those years well. The "scientific community" was filled with kooks and flakes from California screaming about the "coming Ice Age".


(Apparently a FAKE Time Magazine cover... I've not been able to locate the original, but I DO recall it existed specifically stating the Ice Age was coming)

In 1974 Time magazine also put out an article concerning the Ice Age. Following is the text of that article:

TIME Magazine Archive Article -- Another Ice Age? -- Jun. 24, 1974
TIME MAGAZINE ^ | June 24, 1974/2006 | Time Magazine
Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 6:47:34 AM by paltz



TIME MAGAZINE -1974

LINK TO 1974 ARTICLE


In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries. In Canada's wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have recently experienced the mildest winters within anyone's recollection.


As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.


Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.


Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds —the so-called circumpolar vortex—that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world. Indeed it is the widening of this cap of cold air that is the immediate cause of Africa's drought. By blocking moisture-bearing equatorial winds and preventing them from bringing rainfall to the parched sub-Sahara region, as well as other drought-ridden areas stretching all the way from Central America to the Middle East and India, the polar winds have in effect caused the Sahara and other deserts to reach farther to the south. Paradoxically, the same vortex has created quite different weather quirks in the U.S. and other temperate zones. As the winds swirl around the globe, their southerly portions undulate like the bottom of a skirt. Cold air is pulled down across the Western U.S. and warm air is swept up to the Northeast. The collision of air masses of widely differing temperatures and humidity can create violent storms—the Midwest's recent rash of disastrous tornadoes, for example.



Sunspot Cycle. The changing weather is apparently connected with differences in the amount of energy that the earth's surface receives from the sun. Changes in the earth's tilt and distance from the sun could, for instance, significantly increase or decrease the amount of solar radiation falling on either hemisphere—thereby altering the earth's climate. Some observers have tried to connect the eleven-year sunspot cycle with climate patterns, but have so far been unable to provide a satisfactory explanation of how the cycle might be involved.


Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.


Climatic Balance. Some scientists like Donald Oilman, chief of the National Weather Service's long-range-prediction group, think that the cooling trend may be only temporary. But all agree that vastly more information is needed about the major influences on the earth's climate. Indeed, it is to gain such knowledge that 38 ships and 13 aircraft, carrying scientists from almost 70 nations, are now assembling in the Atlantic and elsewhere for a massive 100-day study of the effects of the tropical seas and atmosphere on worldwide weather. The study itself is only part of an international scientific effort known acronymically as GARP (for Global Atmospheric Research Program).


Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth's surface could tip the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years.


The earth's current climate is something of an anomaly; in the past 700,000 years, there have been at least seven major episodes of glaciers spreading over much of the planet. Temperatures have been as high as they are now only about 5% of the time. But there is a peril more immediate than the prospect of another ice age. Even if temperature and rainfall patterns change only slightly in the near future in one or more of the three major grain-exporting countries—the U.S., Canada and Australia —global food stores would be sharply reduced. University of Toronto Climatologist Kenneth Hare, a former president of the Royal Meteorological Society, believes that the continuing drought and the recent failure of the Russian harvest gave the world a grim premonition of what might happen. Warns Hare: "I don't believe that the world's present population is sustainable if there are more than three years like 1972 in a row."

Newsweek covered the same story in 1975 and here's the text of that article:

The Cooling World

Newsweek, April 28, 1975

www.denisdutton.com

---

Here is the text of Newsweek’s 1975 story on the trend toward global cooling. It may look foolish today, but in fact world temperatures had been falling since about 1940. It was around 1979 that they reversed direction and resumed the general rise that had begun in the 1880s, bringing us today back to around 1940 levels. A PDF of the original is available here. A fine short history of warming and cooling scares has recently been produced. It is available here.


We invite readers interested in finding out about both sides of the debate over global warming to visit our website: Climate Debate Daily — Denis Dutton

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.


The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.


To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”


A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.


To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.


Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”


Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.


“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.


Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

(And for the sake of sanity, here's some links to other related articles: http://archive.org/stream/patternspe...0nati_djvu.txt
http://www.climatedepot.com/2009/10/...-age-claims-2/)

Basically, because of these articles it becomes questionable as to whether real science is playing a part or this is hype to scare the public or worse, scare the government into giving monies for "research" programs...

Of course, one statement stands out: "Climatic Balance. Some scientists like Donald Oilman, chief of the National Weather Service's long-range-prediction group, think that the cooling trend may be only temporary. But all agree that vastly more information is needed about the major influences on the earth's climate."

Temporary? Perhaps.

This year in Colorado the weather has been abnormal. Today as this is written is 22 May 2013. We have had cool to cold weather in general all winter, and well into the Spring. Summer is just a Month away and we have had 2 days that have hit the 80s. Even today it is going to hit the high 70s. We had a mild winter, not too cold - though there were very, very bitterly cold days.

All of this of course is anecdotal evidence on my part - because of the 'small sample'. But over 25 years in Colorado as both an amateur astronomer as well as a trained weather spotter with a background in earth sciences I can say unequivocally that the "weather is different now than it was 25 years ago".

What do I mean by this? I mean that we have less rain, less water, fewer storms of late. When I first arrived every winter brought 2-3 foot snow storms. Every summer brought large mesoscale events that spawned tornadoes and large hail.

On AVERAGE the number of storms SEEMS to have reduced.

On AVERAGE we have gotten less snow.

But - scientifically speaking the Midwest and Western US is actually going through a drought. From California to Ohio, we've seen less rain IN GENERAL and ON AVERAGE.

Still a bit of anecdotal evidence but it could be argued that "this is because of global warming".

Simply because environmentalists want to have something to point to to win their argument - and that is the basis of this article.

The Left, the Environmentalists, the KOOKS out there use NOTHING BUT anecdotal evidence to make their arguments.

Essentially, no one, no where has proven beyond a shadow of doubt there would be a Ice Age or Global Warming.

That there is constant "climate change" going on is a given. Every season brings "climate change". Summer in the northern hemisphere brings hot, dry weather with storms. Summer in the southern hemisphere brings cold and snow. The winter reverses the climates we see in our respective hemispheres.

Right now the sun is approaching the "Solar Maximum" for sun spots. Sun spots as evidenced this week by the activity on the sun causes massive amounts of solar radiation - a drastic increase over solar minimums, and thus more 'weather', more storms, more tornadic activities in mesoscale storms.

Climate Change certainly happens, but it's neither man made nor unexpected.


Final note:

Other people seem to believe this is an accurate cover from Time. I can't confirm it.

http://www.ridesintherain.com/tags/climate-change/

Ice Age or Global Warming

By Tom | Published 24 November, 2012
The first Earth Day in the United States was held in the 1970′s. As this ecological movement spread across the United States these experts were expecting a new ice age to occur within our lifetime.

The following images of actual Time magazine covers proves their original prediction was not accurate. The experts shifted their focus from an ice age to global warming to global climate change. When should we believe these experts when they have been so wrong? We should we believe these experts when they are not sharing their research so that it could be independently verified.